E 398 

.M2185 




LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

I 



DQQ05DETDTD 



*o. 






A v 



■<>, 



^ 









-^ - 






l* 3 






<* 



'o , » * 



** 



<v 



*p. « 



.V 



r . * • o . *o 



4* • 

\V t 






^ 



% 



,.V 




,0 



V ^ V ^ ' 






"i « *»» <"& 



.4* ** 



* * 



o ^. 



' 0° 






T* 
















tt. "i\! 



IT- 








bF 












V 



,<r 



• 






iU 






,0 



:•♦ *b 






SUV- 






o_ * 



if 




-t> 







o 
a 



^ 






.v.* 



Asf*. 






SEVENTEENTH LEGISLATURE. 



No. 14. 3IOHSE. 



REPORT 

TKESENTEB BY 

MR. HOLMES, OP ALFRED, 



IN THE 



HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

FEBRUARY 2, 1S37. 



ON THE 



SfOSSSC BASV3E3H SOTKHMS'S', 



The Joint Committee to whom was referred so much 
of the Governor's Message as relates to the North Eastern 
Boundary and the documents and evidence, together with 
an order of the two Houses instructing the Committee 
" to enquire into the expediency of providing by law for the 
appointment of Commissioners on the part of this State 
by the consent of the government of the United Stales 
to survey the line between this State and the Province of 
N. Brunswick according to the treaty of 1783, to establish 
monuments in such places as shall be fixed by said Com- 
missioners and by Commissioners to be appointed on the 
part of the government of Great Britain;" have attended 
to the duties assigned them with the industry and solici- 
tude which the importance of the subject demanded. 

Could the Committee have spared the time, and had the 
means to obtain documents not within the jurisdiction of 

Smitk & Robinson, Printers. 



2 

the Stale, and consequently out of its power, a more clear, 
methodical and perfect view of the subject would have 
been presented. But as there had been hitherto so much 
procrastination, and the impatience of the public, alreadv 
great, was becoming more and more intense, your Com- 
mittee without further preamble or apology, ask leave to 
present the following 

REPORT. 

The Legislature and people of Maine, we believe, will 
not contend that the treaty making power of the United 
States does not extend to a final adjustment of a disputed 
line of boundary between a State and a foreign nation ; 
although we are fully aware that such a power might 
deprive a State of its proper domain — yet inasmuch as the 
President owes his elevation in part to the federative prin- 
ciple, and the Statesare equally represented in the Senate, 
and two thirds of the members present are necessary to 
the ratification of a treaty, each frontier State might be 
pretty safe from any attempt at dismemberment. 

The Cramers of the Constitution foresaw that the time 
might come when the States frontier to foreign territory 
might be in a minority, and that consequently their unity 
of interest and safety might not avail them, and it was 
wisely determined that one more than a third might effectu- 
ally defeat any attempt to dismember a State by treaty. 
And this precaution it seems was necessary, since it already 
occurs that nine only of the twenty-six States are frontier 
to foreign territory. But we do insist that no power ia 
granted by the Constitution of the United States to limit 
or change the boundary of a Slate or cede a part of its territory 
without its consent. It is even by no means certain how far 
such consent would enable the treaty authority to exert its 



powers. Citizens might be made the subjects of a I real j 
transfer, and these citizens, owing allegiance to the State 
and to the Union, and allegiance and protection being 
reciprocally binding, the right to transfer a citizen to a 
foreign government — to sell him, might well be questioned, 
as being inconsistent with the spirit of our free institutions. 
But be this as it may, Maine will never concede the prin- 
ciple that the President and two thirds of the Senate can 
transfer its territory, much less its citizens without its per- 
mission given by its constitutional organs. 

Your Committee, however, deem it but fair to admi 
that they have discovered no inclination in the Genera. 
Government or any department of it to assume this power. 
On the contrary, the President has repeatedly declined 
the adoption of a, conventional line deviating from the 
treaty of 1783 — upon the express ground, that it could 
not be done without the consent of Maine. 

It is due nevertheless to the State of Maine to say that 
the Committee have no evidence that any conventional 
line has been proposed to them for their consent. It 
indeed appears that the consent of Maine had not been 
given to the adoption of any other boundary than that 
prescribed by the treaty of 1783, up to the 29th Febru- 
ary 1836, and we are well assured that no proposition for 
i different boundary has since that time been made to any 
department of the government of this State. 

The President of the United States on the 15th June 
last communicated to the Senate in compliance with their 
resolution a copy of the correspondence relative to theN. 
E. Boundary. This correspondence embraced a period 
from the 21st July 1832, to the 5th March 1836. 

The opinion and advice of the King of the Netherlands 



to whom the controversy was referred, by the provisions 
of the Treaty of Ghent was made on the 10th January, 1831, 
and of the three questions submitted viz: The northeastern 
boundary — the northicestcrnmost head of Connecticut River and 
the 45th parallel of latitude, he seems to have determined 
but one. He did decide that the source of the stream run- 
ning into and through Connecticut Lake is the true N. W. 
head of that river, as intended by the Treaty of 1783 — and 
as to the rest, he advises that it will be convenient (ilcan- 
vindra) to adopt the " Thalweg" the deepest channel of 
the St. Johns and St. Francis from the north line; and that 
the 45th degree is to be measured in order to mark out 
the boundary to the St. Lawrence, with a deviation so as 
to include Rouse's Point within the United States. As to 
the convenience of establishing the St. Johns and St. Fran- 
cis as tho northern boundary of Maine, we have only to 
observe that however " convenient" it may be to Great 
Britain to obtain so large a portion of our territory and 
waters, it would certainly be very inconvenient to us, and 
inasmuch as we are probably capable of judging of our own 
" convenience" and have never solicited the advice of any 
one on this point, it is scarcely to be expected that we shall 
be advised to adopt a line, so preposterous and injurious. 

It was in this view and in strict conformity with the con- 
stitution confering the Treaty Power, that the President on 
the 7th December, 1831, submitted to the Senate this "a- 
ward" and "advice" of the King of the Netherlands — Sen- 
ators were divided on a principal point — some insisting that 
to carry the award or opinion into effect was only in exe- 
cution of the treaty and it therefore belonged exclusively 
to the President " to take care" that this "supreme law" 
was faithfully executed or to reject it altogether. 



But the prevailing opinion was, that this "award" or 
"advice" was perfecting an unfinished treaty, and that 
therefore it could not be effected by the President with- 
out " the advice and consent of the Senate, two thirds of 
the members present concurring therein." So far from 
the concurrence of two thirds/or the measure, there were 
thirty four to eight against it, and it was consequently re- 
jected and a recommendation to the President was adopted 
to open a new negotiation to determine the line of boun- 
dary according to the Treaty of 1783. 

It is insisted by the British ministers and almost conce- 
ded by ours, that a due north line from the monument at 
the source of the St. Croix, will intersect no highlands 
described in the treaty of 1783. Now this is an assump- 
tion, by Great Britain, totally unwarranted by any evi- 
dence. The boundaries bearing upon the question are 
thus given : "From theN. W. angle of Nova Scotia, to wit: 
That angle which is formed by a line drawn due north 
from the source of the St. Croix River, to the highlands — 
along the said highlands, which divide the rivers that empty 
themselves into the St. Lawrence from those which fall 
into the Atlantic Ocean, to the northwesternmost head of 
Connecticut River." — " East by a line to be drawn along 
the middle of the River St. Croix, from its mouth in the 
Bay of Fundy, to its source, and from its source directly 
north to the aforesaid highlands, which divide the rivers 
that fall into the Atlantic Ocean, from those which fall into 
the St. Lawrence." 

The first object, starting place or terminus aquo % is this 
JV*. W. Angle of Nova Scotia. It is the corner of the Brit- 
ish Province, designated by themselves. It was presumed 
and it is still believed that they knew the identical spot. 

1* 



We have a right to demand of them to define it. In the 
treaty of 1783 they were disposed to define it, and hence 
they say it is that angle which is formed by a line drawn dm 
north from the source of the St. Croix, to those highlands which 
divide tlie rivers that flow into the St. iMwrence from those 
which flow into the Atlantic Ocean. 

Nothing can be more clear than that the British nego- 
tiators of the treaty of 1783, had reference to their east 
and west line between Canada and Nova Scotia. This in 
1755-6 was matter of controversy between France and 
England — the French claiming that it was far south, and 
the British strenuously contending that these very high- 
lands were even more north than we have endeavored to 
fix them. 

The controversy resulted in a war, which after the 
capture of Quebec was terminated by the peace of 1763, 
whereby Great Britain obtained both sides of the line and 
she then established the north line of Nova Scotia about 
where we contend it should be. So far from admitting 
that a due north line from the monument will not intersect 
the highlands intended by the treaty of 1783, the State 
of Maine has always insisted, and still insists, that no 
known obstacle exists to the ascertaining and accurately 
defining them, and thus establishing the terminus aquo, to 
toit, the JV. W. Angle of Nova Scotia. It would seem strange 
indeed that as this line so fully discussed and controverted 
between the English and French in 1755 — 6, should have 
been left unsettled still, when both Provinces became 
British. It is impossible to imagine such ignorance of so 
important a point as this N. VV. Angle, so often referred 
to and spoken of as a notorious monument. 

The peace of 17S3 was considered by Great Britain as 
a grant by metes and bounds. The boundaries were pre- 



scribed ; aod this N. W. Angle was the commencement. — 
Twenty years only before this (1763) Nova Scotia had 
been organized as a distinct Province — then including what 
are now Nova Scotia and New Brunswick — and this ande 
was referred to as a boundary without hesitancy or doubt. 
Indeed the treaty itself, as if to make assurance doubly 
sure, fixed it where a due north line from the source of the 
St. Croix will intersect those highlands which divide the 
rivers which flow into the River St. Lawrence from those 
which flow into the Atlantic ocean. This source of the 
St. Croix has been determined and a monument fixed 
there by the Commissioners under the 5th article of the 
treaty of 1795 (Jay's). — Now the assumption that the north 
line from this monument, will intersect or meet no such 
highlands, is entirely gratuitous. 

The treaty does not speak of mountains nor even hills, 
but of " highlands" that divide rivers flowing different 
ways. It was well known that rivers did fall into the St. 
Lawrence and into the Atlantic — that these rivers would 
run down and not up, and it was consequently inferred that 
the land from whence these rivers flowed, must of necessity 
be high — and unless there are to be found in that region 
geological phenomena which exist no where else on the 
face of the globe, this inference is irrisistible. 

The truth is that these highlands have been known and 
well understood by the British themselves ever since the 
grant of James the First to Sir William Alexander in 1621. 
The portion of the boundary there given which relates to 
this controversy is " from the western spring head of the 
St. Croix by an imaginary line, conceived to run through 
the land northward to the next road of Ship's river or 
spring, discharging itself into the great river of Canada,and 



8 

proceeding thence eastward along the shores of the sea of 
the said river of Canada, to the road, haven or shore, com- 
monly called gaspeck" — (gaspe.) 

The cession of Canada by France made it necessary to 
define the limits of the Province of Quebec, and accord- 
ingly his Brittanic Majesty by his Proclamation of 7th 
Oct. 1763, is thus explicit, as to what afiects this question 
— "passing along the highlands which divide the rivers that 
empty themselves into the said river St. Lawrence, from 
those which fall into the sea, and also along the north coast of 
the Bay de Chaleurs and the coast of the gulph of the St. 
Lawrence to Cape Hosiers," &c. 

The act of Parliament of the 14, George III, (1774) de- 
fines thus the south line of Canada — "south by aline from 
the Bay de Chaleurs along the highlands which divide the 
rivers that empty themselves into the river St. Lawrence 
from those which flow into the sea.'' y The north line of the 
grant to Alexander is from the source of the St. Croix to 
the "spring head" or source of some river or stream which 
falls into the river St. Lawrence, and thence eastward to 
Gaspe Bay which communicates with the gulph of St. 
Lawrence in lat. 49, 30, and would make nearly an east 
and west line. The Proclamation of 1763 defines the sotUh 
line of the Province of Quebec as passing along the high- 
lands which divide the rivers that fall into the St. Law- 
rence, from those which fall into the sea, and also along 
the north coast of the Bay de Chaleurs, to the gulph of St. 
Lawrence. This is the south boundary and consequently 
in an east and xrest direction, but it passes north of Bay de 
Chaleurs, wherefore the south boundary of the Province 
must of necessity be north of Bay de Chaleurs. The 
eastern boundary is northerly by the gulph to Cape Ro- 



9 

§ 

siers, in about lat. 50, long. 64, north of Gaspe Bay, and 
at the mouth of the river St. Lawrence where it commu- 
nicates with the gulpb or sea. And the act of Parliament 
makes this south side from this same bay, along those high- 
lands, and it must inevitably run west or it is no south bound- 
ary. Now no one can doubt that in the Proclamation of 
17G3 it was the intent to adopt Sir William Alexander's 
northern for this southern boundary of the Province of Que- 
bec. 

Indeed it appears in every commission to the Governor 
of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick from 1763 to 1784 
and after the Treaty of Peace of 1783, that the Province 
of Nova Scotia extended to the southern boundary of the 
Provinces of Quebec. It then irresistibly and inevitably 
follows that a west line from the Bay de Chaleurs inter- 
secting a due north line from the monument is the identi- 
cal N. W. angle. Now a line from Mars Hill direct to 
Cape Hosiers instead of being easterly would be north of 
northeast crossing the Bay de Chaleurs. But passing along 
its north coast as the proclamation provides, the line from 
this Mars Hill must be more northerly still. Indeed the 
pretence that a pyramidal spur or peak such as this hill 
should constitute the range of highlands, mentioned in the 
treaty, is so utterly visionary that it is entitled to no sort of 
respect. 

We may now, by these facts and reflections give this 
enquiry a right direction, to wit — to the ascertainment of 
the north Boundary of Nova Scotia, which is the southern 
boundary of Canada. We have always been lured from 
this by the British negotiators to the left or west of this 
north line from the monument. 

No one, who is in the least conversant with the subject, 



10 

can suppose for a moment that this N. W. Angle can be 
found in such a direction. The question for us is, are 
there any highlands north of the Bay de Chaleurs ex- 
tending in a western direction ioioaids a north line drawn 
from the monument. If this line westerly from the Bay 
be not distinctly marked so far as to intersect this north 
line, the principle is, to extend it in the same direction 
to the place of intersection; that is, if the line between 
Nova Scotia and Canada is west to within say 30 miles of the 
north line from the monument, and the rest of the way is 
indefinite or obscure, extend it on, in the same direction, 
until you form a point of intersection, and this will be the 
north west angle of Nova Scotia. But the truth is tho 
high-lands are there and have been found in running due 
north from the monument. 

The elevations were taken by the British surveyor from 
the source of the St. Croix, at the monument to the first 
waters of the Ristigouche ; and at Mar's Hill forty miles 
— the summit of this isolated sugar-loaf was 1100 feet and 
at the termination of the survey at the Ristigouche waters, 
100 miles further, the elevation was 1600 feet, conse- 
quently the summit of Mar's Hill, 1100 feet above the 
waters of the St. Croix, is 500 feet lower than the lands 
at the Ristigouche, and yet the pretence is that there are 
no highlands, but this detached spur, Mar's Hill ! Still 
further, the highest position surveyed, is nearly 50 miles 
short of the metis, which falls into the St. Lawrence and 
we do not perceive that the elevations have been taken 
there at all ; but we do find, it is here that the icatcrs sepa- 
rate and consequently the land must be still higher. 

In failure of highlands (assumed not to exist) the Brit- 
ish negotiators claim a line, which instead of dividing the 



11 

St. Lawrence and Atlantic waters would actually extend 
between two rivers, both of which fall into the Atlantic 

To say nothing of the absurdity, not to say arrogance, 
of such a claim, it is enough that it is in the teeth of the 
treaty itself. It is painful to repeat the argument that no 
other highlands were intended, for all others were ex- 
pressly excluded, but those which divide the waters 
that flow in those different directions. The effect of 
their construction, as we all know, is to give them the 
whole of the St. John, with all its tributaries and a tract 
of territory south of that river, equal at least to 75 miles 
iquare. 

Whether from the peaceful spirit of our government, 
the christian patience of Maine, or the " modest assurance" 
of the British negotiators, any or all, certain it is, that his 
Britanic Majesty's pretensions are growing every day. It is 
not only an after-thought, but one very recently conceiv- 
ed, that we were to be driven south of the St. John. 

His Britanic Majesty's Agent (Mr. Chipman) who has 
been lately urging us south of that river, was also Agent 
to the Commission under the treaty of 1795, to ascertain 
the true St. Croix, acd in insisting on a more iccstcm 
branch of this river, gives as a reason, that a line due 
north will cross the St. Johns farther tip, whereas, if you 
take an eastern branch, such line will cross near Frederick- 
ton, the seat of government of New Brunswick, and mate- 
rially infringe upon His Majesty's Province. He not 
only admits, but contends, that this north line must cross 
the river. Here are his words : " This north line must 
of necessity cross the river St. Johns." Mr. Liston, Bri- 
tish minister, in a private letter to Mr. Chipman of 23d 
October, 1798, recommends a modification of the powers 



12 

of the Commissioners, for the reason, that it might givt 
Great Britain a greater extent of navigation on the St. Johns 
river. The same Agent (Mr. Chipman) was also Agent 
under the fourth article of the treaty of Ghent, and we 
find him contending there, that the N. W. angle of Nova 
Scotia is the same designated in the Grant to Sir. Wm. 
Alexander, in 1621, "subject only to such alterations as 
were occasioned by the erection of the Province of Que- 
bec, in 1763." Now we have already seen that this south 
line of the Province of Quebec, so far from altering this 
N. W. angle, in fact confirms if. 

In perfect accordance with this disposition to encroach, 
is a proposition of the British Minister (Mr. Vaughan,) 
that inasmuch as the highlands cannot be found, by a due 
north direction from the monument, we should vary west 
until we should intersect them, but not east ! Now that, 
in case a monument cannot be found in the course pre- 
scribed you should look for it, at the left, but not to the right, 
seems to us a very siiiister proposition. We have shown, 
and, as we think conclusively, that the range of highlands 
is to be looked for on British ground and no where else; 
because it is their own boundary, and a line which must, 
with an ascertained north line, form the angle of one of 
their own Provinces. And yet we are not to examine 
there at all, we have never explored the country there, and 
are expected to yield to such arrogant, extravagant, and 
baseless pretensions! 

We would ask, why ? in what justice, if we cannot find 
the object in the route prescribed, are we to be thus 
trammelled ? where is the reciprocity of such a proposition, 
so degrading to the dignity, and insulting to the rights and 
liberties of this State ? No — the people of Maine will 



13 

not now and we trust they never will, tamely submit to 
such a one sided measure. 

The next restriction or limitation, with which this ne- 
gotiation is to be clogged, is an admission that the Risti- 
gouche and St. Johns are not Atlantic rivers — because one 
flows into the Bay de Chaleurs and the other into the Bay 
of Fundy — yet neither falls into the river St. Lawrence. 
They would then find those high lands between the St. 
John's and the Penobscot. There cannot be a more ar- 
rogant pretension or palpable absurdity. Suppose the 
waters of both these rivers are excluded, as flowing neither 
way, still the waters that flow each icay, are so far separated, 
as to leave a tract of country which, if equally divided, 
would carry us far beyond the St. Johns. But we admit 
no such hypothesis. The Atlantic and the sea are used in 
the charters as synonimous terms. The Ristigouche uniting 
with the Bay de Chaleurs, which communicates with the 
sea, and the St. Johns uniting with the Bay of Fundy, 
which also communicates with the sea, and that too by a 
mouth 90 miles wide, are both Atlantic rivers. These 
rivers were known by the negotiators not to be St. Law- 
rence rivers, they were known to exist, for they were rivers 
of the first class. If they were neither St. Lawrence nor 
Atlantic why were they not excepted ? They were not of 
the former, therefore they must be included in the latter 
description. Indeed if rivers uniting with Atlantic Bays 
are not Atlantic rivers, the Penobscot and Kennebec, which 
unite with the respective Bays of Penobscot and Sagada- 
hock would not be Atlantic rivers ; and then where are 
those high-lands which divide the waters referred to in 
the treaty of 1783 ? Should we leave this question unset- 
tled a little longer and the British claim3 continue to in- 

2 



14 

crease, we might very soon find these high-lands south of 
the Connecticut and all the intermediate country would 
be recolonized by " construction." We therefore invoke 
the sympathy of all New England with New York besides, 
to unite against this progressive claim — this avalanche 
which threatens to overwhelm them as icell as ourselves. 

Again, if this Mar's Hill (and we confess we cannot 
speak of the pretension with any patience) is the JV. W. 
Angle, and the north boundary of Nova Scotia and the 
south boundary of the Province of Quebec are the same and 
north of the Bay de Chaleurs, then there is indeed noN. W. 
angle ; for a line, due north from the monument, passing 
by Mars Hill, must pursue nearly the same direction to 
get to the north of that Bay without crossing it ; and 
whoever thought of an angle at the side of a continuous 
line ? Now according to the British maps, taken in this 
very case, you must run a course of north about 1-ldegs. 
east to obtain the north side of the Bay without crossing 
it, and the distance would be in this almost due north 
direction more than 100 miles — while that from the monu- 
ment to Mar's Hill would be little more than 40. Now 
when we consider that this northerly line must form 
nearly a right angle, to pass along the north shore of the 
Bay de Chaleurs, that this is 100 miles farther north than 
Mar's Hill, where instead of an angle there can be only 
an inclination of 14 dogs., can there be a greater absurdity, 
than the British claim, founded on these facts ? 

We will now present some facts and remarks in regard 
to the surveys and explorings made by the commission 
under the 5th article of the Treaty of Ghent. And the 
first fact that occurs is, ; that the elevations taken by 
the British surveyor, stop far short of where the waters 



15 

divide, and we find no proof that these elevations were 
carried through by our own surveyors. If the British 
surveyor, after ascertaining he ions still ascending and had 
in fact arrived at the lands at a branch of a river elevated 
500 feet even above the summit of Mar's Hill, found it pru- 
dent to stop short, we see no good reason why the American 
agent did not proceed on and take accurate elevations, at a 
place where the waters divide. If such a survey was made, 
the committee have not been able to obtain the evidence — 
it is not in the maps or documents in the Library or office of 
the Secretary of State, and the Committee believe that no 
such elevations have been taken northerly of the first wa- 
ters of the Rbtigouche. It is indeed -a little singular that 
we have so little evidence, not only in regard to this height 
of land, but also of the rivers which flow into the St. 
Lawrence to the left, and especially to the right, of the north 
line from the monument. 

We know some of them, to be sure, such as the Oclle 
Kamouska, Verle, Trois Pistoles, Kemouskey, and Metis on the 
left, and the Blanche, Louis, Magdalen, and others on the 
right of this line, but we know them chiefly as on maps, 
and as transcribed from older maps — but very little from 
actual survey or even exploration. An examination of the 
sources of those rivers at the right of this north line, with 
the important natural boundary — the north shore of the 
Bay de Chaleurs, would accurately define the divisional 
line, between the Province of Quebec and Nova Scotia, 
which extending west, would intersect the due north line 
and thus form the N. W. angle of Nova Scotia. 

It moreover appears that little or no exploration has 
been made of the lands east of the due north line. It 
geems strange to us, although it may be satisfactorily ex- 



16 

plained, why we should have been drawn away from this 
very important region. It is indeed the true source of en- 
quiry. In this direction the evidence is to be found; and 
Maine can never be satisfied until it is looked for here. 

An extraordinary method of adjusting this question, 
though in perfect accordance with other pretensions has 
been proposed by Great Britain — that the disputed terri- 
tory should be divided in equal portions, each party being 
satisfied of the justice of its claims. To this proposition 
we cannot subscribe. It is equally unjust between nations 
and individuals. Whether a party in controversy is satis- 
fied or not with the] justice of his claims, is what is only 
known to himself, and consequently the one whose claims 
are most exhorbitant, however unjust, will always get.the 
best end of the bargain. But such a rule would in this 
case apply most unfortunately to Maine. Wc are limited, 
at farthest to the St. Lawrence, and to a very narrow 
point there — while the British may extend their claims to 
the south and west indefinitely. Establish this principle, 
and we shall soon find their claims, already so progressive, 
stretched over to the Piscataqua, and then, if we are to 
divide equally, both as to quantity and quality, the divisional 
line then would fall south of the Kennebec. If the want 
of the consent of Maine is the obstacle to such an adjust- 
ment, we trust it will always remain an insuperable one. 
Indeed, we protest against the application to us, of such 
a rule, as manifestly unequal and unjust. 

We come now to the recent transactions of the British 
colonial authorities, sanctioned, as it appears, bv the gov- 
ernment at home — and we regret to perceive in them also, 
those strong indications of continual and rapid encroach- 
ment, which have characterised that government in the 



17 

whole of this controversy. Mr Livingston in his letter of 
21st July, 1832, proposes that "until the matter be brought 
to a final conclusion both parties should refrain from the 
exercise of "jurisdiction," and Mr Vaughan in reply of 
14th April, 1833, in behalf of his government "entirely 
concurs." — Here then the faith of the two governments is 
pledged to abstain from acts of jurisdiction until all is set- 
tled. Now how are the facts? We understand and indeed 
it appears by documents herewith exhibited, that an act 
has passed the Legislature of New Brunswick, "incorpor- 
ating the St. Andrews and Quebec Rail Road Company," 
that the King has granted £10,000 to aid the enterprise, 
and that the Legislature of Lower Canada, by its resolu- 
tions of both Houses, has approved the scheme and prom- 
ised its co-operation. It may be, that the government at 
home was not aware that this Rail Road must inevitably 
cross the disputed territory. 

But this ignorance of the subject seems incredible. A 
Rail Road from St. Andrews to Quebec would be impossible, 
unless it crossed the territory in question. Even next to 
impossible and totally useless, were it to pass at the north 
of the St. Johns. It seems therefore extraordinary indeed 
that the British Government, even in the incipient stages 
oi this enterprise, should make an appropriation which is 
id direct violation of its solemn pledge. To give to a 
Rail Road corporation powers over our rights and prop- 
erty is the strongest act of sovereignty. It is an act of 
delegated power which we ourselves give to our own 
citizens with extreme caution, and with guarded restric- 
tions and reservations. This R;iil Road must not onlv 
cross the disputed territory, but it crosses it 50 miles 
south of the St. Johns and almost to the southerly ex- 



18 

tremity of the British claim, extravagant as it is. By the 
map herewith exhibited, of the survey of the route, it 
appears that the road crosses our due north line at Mar's 
Hill, thence doubling round it, toward the south, it crosses 
the Roostic between the great and little iMachias — the JllU- 
guash at the out-let of Jiist Lake — a branch of the St. 
Johns south of Black River and passes into Canada between 
u Spruce Hills" on the right and "Three Hills" on the 
left, thus crossing a tract of country south of the St. Johns 
100 by 50 miles. We have not a copy of the act of incor- 
poration of New Brunswick, and cannot therefore say that 
the route there defined is the same as on the map. But be 
this as it may, certain it is, as any one will see, that no 
possible route can be devised which will not cross the 
territory in question. It is then a deliberate act of pow- 
er, palpable and direct, claiming and exercising sovereignty 
far south even of the line recommended by the King of 
the Netherlands. 

In all our enquiries and examinations of this subject 
there has been great negligence in regard to this N. W. 
Angle. Judge Benson one of the Commissioners under 
Jay's treaty, in a letter to the President of the United 
Stales expressly and clearly defines this angle. He 
states distinctly that the due north line from the source of 
the St. Croix is the xccst side line and the highlands are 
t\e north side line which form this angle and this had never 
been questioned by the British themselves. 

This due north line — viz. the we^t side line, was estab- 
lished by the Commission of which Judge Benson was 
a member, and the British have made the north side line 
to be north of the Bay de Chaleurs, and yet with these 
postulates to pretend that the points of intersection can- 



19 

not be found is one of ihe greatest of theif absurdities. 
Andanotherabsurdity quiteequal, is, that after passingwest 
along the north shore of this Bay, the) would fall down 
nearlv south more than 100 miles to Mar's Hill about 60 
miles from the south shore of the Province at the Bay of 
Passamaquoddy — which is part of the Bay of Fundy ; and 
his point too of so little inclination that it is a palpable 
perversion of language to call it an angle, much more a N. 
W. Angle. 

It is indeed time for us to begin to search and in the 
right places too, in order to put a stop to these perpetual 
encroachments upon our territory and rights. Our first 
object should be to ascertain and trace the north boundary 
of Nova Scotia which is the south boundary of the Prov- 
ince of Quebec, and see if Canada comes as far down as 
Mar's Hill. And we should proceed to finish taking the 
elevations on the due north line to some point where 
the waters divide. The General Government should be 
immediately called on to execute the work with the co- 
operation of Massachusetts and Maine. Notice should be 
given to the British authorities to unite in the undertaking, 
and if they refuse, our Government ought to proceed 
cxparte. The act would be entirely pacific, as the object 
would be to ascertain facts, much more pacific than the 
survey, without notice, of the St. Andrews and Quebec Rail 
Road, through our territory, not for the purpose of ascer- 
taining a boundary, but to assume jurisdiction. 

Your Committee have irone through this tedious inves- 
ligation wil.il all the deliberation, exactness and candour, 
which our time, means and feelings would allow. Our 
animadversions may, in some instances, have been strong 
and even severe, but we think we have expressed the sen- 



20 



timents and feelings of the people of Maine suffering under 
protracted injuries. The State should take a firm, deliber- 
ate, and dignified stand, and one which it will not retract. 
While it awards to the General Government all its legitimate 
powers, it will not be forgetful of its own. We call upon 
the President and Congress, we invoke that aid and sym- 
pathy of our sister States, which Maine has always accord- 
ed to them ; we ask, nay we demand, in the name of jus- 
tice, how long we are to be thus trampled down by a for- 
eign people? and we trust we shall meet a cordial and pa- 
triotic response in the heart of every republican of the 
Union. Your Committee, therefore, submit the following 
Resolutions. 

L. J. HAM, ) 2, 

NATHANIEL S. LITTLEFIELD, S. 



SAM'L P. BENSON, 
EBEN'R HIGGINS, 
JOHN R. REDMAN, 



! 



CD 

3 
SS 

cs 



JOHN HOLMES, 
J. A. LOWELL, 
NATHAN IDE, 
DANIEL SMALL, 
SEWALL PRESCOTT, 
EPHRAIM WEEKS, 
JAMES BURBANK, 
CHARLES HUNT, 
JOHN D. RICHARDS. 



ra 



o 

c 



STATE OF MAINE. 



RESOLVES relative to the North Eastern 

Bonn clary. 

1st. Resolved, That we view with much so- 
licitude the British usurpations and encroachments 
on the northeastern part of the territory of this 
State. 

2d. Resolved, That pretensions so groundless 
and extravagant indicate a spirit of hostility, which 
we had no reason to expect from a nation with 
whom we are at peace. 

3d. Resolved, That vigilance, resolution, firm- 
ness and union on the part of this State, are ne- 
cessary in this state of the controversy. 

4th. Resolved, That the Governor be author- 
ized and requested to call on the President of the 
United States to cause the North Eastern Boun- 
dary of this State to be explored and surveyed and 
monuments erected according to the Ireatij of 
1783. 

5th. Resolved, That the co-operation of Massa- 
chusetts be requested. 



22 

6th. Resolved, That our Senators in Congress 
be instructed, and our Representatives requested., 
to endeavor to obtain a speedy adjustment of the 
controversy. 

at 

7th. Resolved, That copies of this report and 
resolution, be transmitted to the Governor of Massa- 
chusetts, the President of the United States, to 
each of our Senators and Representatives in Con- 
gress, and other Senators in Congress, and the 
Governors of the several States. 



STATE OF MAINE. 



House of Representatives, > 
February 2, 1837. J 

This Report, on being read, was accepted, and ten 
thousand copies of the same, with the accompanying 
Resolves, ordered to be printed for the use of the Legis- 
lature. 

[Extract from the Journal.] 
Attest, CHARLES WATERHOUSE, Clerk. 



W46 






Vv 



^ 



••- ^e " , .9* >• 






*> *y« 






■ Cr («"' 



*o 



V 



■CT o° 











* ft ^»^ * "T>. 4 






; & /° 


•%c 





3 *r 






•'•• \f 



c, , 



^ 






,0 



" « 



N o 






^ - 



'•«, 






V 



"^ 



A* V 






<>, 






\ 



^ y 



^ 






i0 



,0 



■ • 



§V «.K 






$' 



Q_ * 



*~ 



^°* 



o_ 






v 



.0'' 



^0 *_l^ v » v 












.<"> 



•.w 



/ 

L* 












* o 



^- 










■^ 








j ^s- 



"5a **77T» A <> '° 



^00 







..%. '"V "\ — v.. .-. v— v.. 










Jl v 




o • » ..0 









A <T. 'a . k * o v \3 



^ 



°A 



,0" 







,0 »'**'♦ ^ 



• • • " <v 












:« 



% 




1&r ° 



^ * 









* A ^ r 



; 



